Game 5 is the deal breaker. Lots of teams win game 4 but not many win game 5 and force a chance to play for game 7. A team can brush off one loss and say whatever, then come out strong in game 5 but if we manage to win game 5, that's when the real doubt starts to set in. Game 5 is such a big game, it could really be the turning point. In all honesty I don't see us wining that game but I know they can. Just have to get some lucky bounces and play good D, that's all.

Besides adding to the Wings momentum, if the Wings win Game 5, it will demonstrate several things, all at once, and all in the Wings favor:

Firstly, that their game is continuing its upward ramp from Game 1 (the Wings have stepped up their play with every successive game since, which kept everything very close). Secondly, it will demonstrate that they can steal at least one game at the Shark tank - and if one game there, why not another back at the Joe? Thirdly, it demonstrates that they can find a way to win two in a row against the Sharks. And if one two-in-a-row steak is possible, another is hardly out of the question.

I want the Sharks to win, of course, but I recognize that the games have all been decided by a single goal, two of them in overtime. To me that spells volatile. Veritable tipping points for any team that pushes harder are entirely possible, which means that our series is far from over.

I've been laying low, not wanting to be taken as salt in the wound. Time and a place for everything. I won't post in this thread during the game for that same reason (unless the Wings are blowing out the Sharks - then I might come in), but I will say that this is not the series I had hoped for against the Wings this year. You can't pick your outcomes and it's often said that you shouldn't pick your poison, but I did want this series to be WCF. I wanted the Sharks to win, of course, but I love the Wings second only to the Sharks (and don't consider myself conflicted as a result), and as such wanted a nail-biter that went at least six and was hard fought both ways.

It is what it is. The edge has always been sharp enough to make the outcome of each and every game tantamount to a coin toss. As such, I don't think the Wings needed to do anything with their lines or anything else, but only step up their existing game for more scoring chances, which is the only way to actually start to count on lady luck.

In terms of work, heart and grit alone, I thought both teams deserved to win Game 3, with an edge to the Wings, who outworked the Sharks for two of those periods. I'm still shocked at the outcome. Not displeased, obviously, but shocked - truly stunned - nonetheless. But the Wings did ramp up their play with each successive game, and did get more scoring chances, and I don't expect that ramping has stopped at all. Two very solid and determined teams will be on the ice tonight, intently focused on winning this one game, and very much in the moment - and as a result we should all be treated to some amazing hockey.

I do wish I was in Detroit, having a brew and enjoying a hard fought game with some of the best, most loyal, positive, optimistic and amazing fans in the NHL.

All three one-goal games were won by what was tantamount to three coin flips. You can flip a coin and get heads three times in a row, no problem. And it can go the other way just as easily. Lucky bounces in all three games could have decided each of those games in Detroit's favor. If that had happened, everyone would now be extolling the virtues of All Things Wings, and how they were "able to find a way" to win -- as the Sharks worried frantically over what serious changes needed to be made to get a different result.

I don't underestimate the absolute volatility of a series of extremely low scoring, one-goal-margin games like these, and I seriously doubt that either team's coaches do either. A series like this can swing wildly in either direction.

So yes, while not statistically probable (any more than all the other highly improbable, highly unlikely comebacks in the past two years), it is most definitely possible.

Wings are playing with zero heart overallThey only care about the game when there is 10 minutes or so left

It makes me sick to hear that, because I think the Wings played with nothing but heart, and expended nothing but whatever fumes they had remaining in their tank at the end. I DO NOT BUY that ANY player on a team that work sof****** hard to get where they are "plays with no heart", even when they do poorly.

There were no energy reserves for the Wings players to have to pace in the last five minutes, so they sprinted with all they had left, to try to convert the finish into a forced overtime. And it was a MAGNIFICENT effort - which many fans took as a slap in the face, as if they somehow had ALL that energy to expend over 60 minutes of play. f***! How maddening that must be for them, how can nobody see that?

The last two games helped to ramp the Wings stamina back up some, and will no doubt pay dividends as the next three days of rest puts badly needed fuel back into their (now capacity increased) tanks. The Wings skated better in Game 2 (so said Babcock, so disagree with him, not me), but so did the Sharks. However, the Sharks were already near their peak capacity. For that reason, I fully expect the Wings will be able to skate MUCH better in Game 3, even relative to the Sharks.

And some will say "they finally showed up", "they finally played with some heart this time". :::: GAG - VOMIT - SPIT ::::

Go do push-ups until I get tired, because if you can't do as many as I want you to do, a terrorist is going to shoot your mother. And when, finally, you cannot raise your body even an inch above the floor, I will kick you squarely in the face, then hard to the stomach, for not doing pushups 'with heart'.

Have to admit, watched the game on TSN last night, showed extensive replays including the overhead. Puck never went in

WRONG. I took the video into Adobe Premiere, and could see clearly that the puck was absolutely in the net. Before the whistle.

The only thing that can be argued is whether or not the ref intended to blow the whistle, but it all happened so fast, I think it can be argued that there was no way he had that intent until the puck was already in goal.

I don't see how that question can even be answered. They are both absolutely amazing coaches in my estimation.

The only way to know which one is better would be to have one coach a team for a year, then GO BACK IN TIME and place the other coach at the helm of the exact same team. And even then, it is only going to tell you who was better for that year, and for that team. Otherwise, it's all speculative nonsense, and truly apples to oranges.

Even a win history does not guarantee that one coach was better than the other. Great coaches can be saddled with s***ty players and teams, just as s***ty coaches can be gifted with great players and teams. It happens. Hey, give me nothing but full houses against Doyle's consistent trips, and watch just how "great" I am against him as a coach of the hands I was dealt.

But then again, I don't think the Wings' performance in this series relative to the last one was the fault of the players OR the coach anyway, and I don't think line changes could have done anything to address what I thought was the real problem.

Rust might be what kept the Sharks in the game, but it didn't have anything to do with the Wings losing.

Oh yeah?

If rust was a factor that "kept the Sharks in game", then it also certainly helped them to dictate majority puck possession time, as well as a nearly 2:1 ratio of shots on net. Had that not happened, the Wings would have had more shots on net, and a much higher probability of scoring more goals (given the closeness of the score despite all of that) -- which, in turn, could have made ALL bad calls, funny bounces, and even OT, complete non-factors, and non-issues.